Adkins on Praise or Grumble after Bury

[William Henry Foulkes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032bzhb

Throughout, for me, the main theme was that we were trying to win a game of football even when we were 1-0 down. He seemed confident we could do that. Hard to overstate how refreshing that is.

• Sammon scores it's a different game
• no mention of injury to JCR - doesn't mean there wasn't one, just mentioned the positive of his good performance - again this may be with an eye on Tuesday, don't let Colchester know
• switched to almost a 1-4-2-4 - another idiosyncrasy - which I like: including the keeper in the formation)
• we went Gung Ho and I need to learn from that reading between the lines I think the players went Gung Ho and that was not what was expected of them - but the I need to learn means the buck stops with Adkins
• Two on the line for the first goal needs sorting - see goals conceded thread
• Adams not available for Tuesday, maybe for Sunday - the fact that this is revealed doesn't fit with the omertà theory - unless of course Adams plays Tuesday
• honest, hardworking players
• referee had an interesting game - I like this: don't blame the ref - almost no matter how bad - because it detracts from what you are responsible for
• chances from corners - Sharp, Collins, we are working on these - I think Collins headed one on target that hit his shoulder and went over the bar, but it's hard to tell w/o a replay
• Q: Callers have highlighted McEveley, what do you say to that? A: Not unqualified support from Adkins - first goal was not a foul [It was! see Bergen's post], third goal, their player got away too easily - not the exact wording, but he doesn't publicly back McEveley to the hilt which is what you might expect - even straight-ish after the game.)

Generally I get the sense he really knows what he's doing. We've lost, but I think he's got a very clear idea of how and why, and what to do about it.

 

[HighfieldBlade]

Thanks for the link, WHF.
The red mist is beginning to clear up for me now. getting refreshed for Colchester on Tuesday.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

• 1-4-2-4 - another idiosyncrasy - which I like: including the keeper in the formation)

Urgh – hate it for its pointlessness. It sounds unnatural in conversation, and serves no purpose given that number is never going to change. No coincidence that he was a keeper – must be a long-standing frustration that somehow the keeper is undervalued unless you assign it a value in a formation.

 

[Ricky]

I just hope he can get the squad how he wants it by January. If he manages that then we'll go up, simple as that.

 

[davidpinder]

Generally I get the sense he really knows what he's doing. We've lost, but I think he's got a very clear idea of how and why, and what to do about it.

Couldn't have summed him up better myself, this is the sole reason that the board NEED to back him in the transfer market, if we keep bullshitting our way through transfer windows with all this "we tried but" someone will come knocking in January when clubs start sacking managers, Adkins (and I for wouldn't blame him if he did) WILL jump ship. We need to show him we mean business and genuinely want out of this league and the only way to do that is buy your way out when you have a manager like him in charge because with the right tools we'd piss this league.

 

[BeatleBlade]

What is this omerta theory with Adams?

 

[Bladesman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032bzhb

Throughout, for me, the main theme was that we were trying to win a game of football even when we were 1-0 down. He seemed confident we could do that. Hard to overstate how refreshing that is.

• Sammon scores it's a different game
• no mention of injury to JCR - doesn't mean there wasn't one, just mentioned the positive of his good performance - again this may be with an eye on Tuesday, don't let Colchester know
• switched to almost a 1-4-2-4 - another idiosyncrasy - which I like: including the keeper in the formation)
• we went Gung Ho and I need to learn from that reading between the lines I think the players went Gung Ho and that was not what was expected of them - but the I need to learn means the buck stops with Adkins
• Two on the line for the first goal needs sorting - see goals conceded thread
• Adams not available for Tuesday, maybe for Sunday - the fact that this is revealed doesn't fit with the omertà theory - unless of course Adams plays Tuesday
• honest, hardworking players
• referee had an interesting game - I like this: don't blame the ref - almost no matter how bad - because it detracts from what you are responsible for
• chances from corners - Sharp, Collins, we are working on these - I think Collins headed one on target that hit his shoulder and went over the bar, but it's hard to tell w/o a replay
• Q: Callers have highlighted McEveley, what do you say to that? A: Not unqualified support from Adkins - first goal was not a foul [It was! see Bergen's post], third goal, their player got away too easily - not the exact wording, but he doesn't publicly back McEveley to the hilt which is what you might expect - even straight-ish after the game.)

Generally I get the sense he really knows what he's doing. We've lost, but I think he's got a very clear idea of how and why, and what to do about it.

It's good he knows what went wrong but will he be backed enough by the board to replace certain players.

 

[Jonboy60]

Adkins knowing how to put it right isn't the problem, it's getting the right players that know how to follow instructions,that's the problem.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

What is this omerta theory with Adams?

Omerta was the mafia code of silence, give nothing away, say nothing, no information to the enemy (police in their case). In the case of Adkins it's give nothing away/stay silent as to tactics, formation, line-up prior to the game.

 

[AlienBlade]

• switched to almost a 1-4-2-4 - another idiosyncrasy - which I like: including the keeper in the formation)
• we went Gung Ho and I need to learn from that reading between the lines I think the players went Gung Ho and that was not what was expected of them - but the I need to learn means the buck stops with Adkins

surely by switching to a 4-2-4 created that Gung Ho approach (I also cant remember seeing it as a 4-2-4 tbh... it looked more like a 4-4-2 (with Sammon switching to the wing, when Mcnulty came on.... and then drifting in to a 4-3-3 to relinquish any responsibility to closing down the right back who went on to score.

I mean in many interviews he as stated we "defend from the front" we just didnt seem to do that today.... him not "defending" McEverley is just as bad as critising him in this instance. (which is something Clough was criticised for... he also as you note highlights certain players and their inability to tuck away their chances being "turning points"... is that halo of never apportioning blame slightly slipping...

he also does have a dig at the ref (but falls short of blaming him (as that would probably land him a fine) as if he thought he was good he wouldnt have passed such a comment.

 

[grafikhaus]

Omerta was the mafia code of silence, give nothing away, say nothing, no information to the enemy (police in their case). In the case of Adkins it's give nothing away/stay silent as to tactics, formation, line-up prior to the game.

...by saying Adams is 'not available for Tuesday'? Mamma mia!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Omerta was the mafia code of silence, give nothing away, say nothing, no information to the enemy (police in their case). In the case of Adkins it's give nothing away/stay silent as to tactics, formation, line-up prior to the game.

Not wanting to turn this into Pedants Corner but the main basis of omertà is not interfering in other people's business, of which silence is one part rather than the reason. Particularly Sicilian but Southern Italian as well.

Whether it applies to not interfering in other people's posts, I'm not sure.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Not wanting to turn this into Pedants Corner but the main basis of omertà is not interfering in other people's business, of which silence is one part rather than the reason. Particularly Sicilian but Southern Italian as well.

Whether it applies to not interfering in other people's posts, I'm not sure.

Great post. Thanks.

I didn't think omerta was quite right when I used it, but it sounds so much more dramatic than "keeping mum".

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Not wanting to turn this into Pedants Corner but the main basis of omertà is not interfering in other people's business, of which silence is one part rather than the reason. Particularly Sicilian but Southern Italian as well.

Whether it applies to not interfering in other people's posts, I'm not sure.

I was trying to relate it to Don Adkins specifically, rather than broader meanings. Enjoy a good nights sleep

 

[Sean Thornton]

I was trying to relate it to Don Adkins specifically, rather than broader meanings. Enjoy a good nights sleep

Like we all haven't been there!

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Like we all haven't been there!

I always assumed that Puzo had based the horse's head scene on a real-life event that he'd heard about. Turns out that he never met any Mafioso until after he'd written the books.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I always assumed that Puzo had based the horse's head scene on a real-life event that he'd heard about. Turns out that he never met any Mafioso until after he'd written the books.

I read that too although the offer he couldn't refuse part was supposedly based on true events with Sinatra. Vito Corleone was said to be a composite of Vito Genovese and Joe Bonnano in later years and Carlo Gambino when younger, but all based on what he'd read.
James Caan did research by meeting with Columbo family members and remained firm friends with one who later became the family boss.

Apologies for going off topic!

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Has anyone see the extended version. I think it's I and II combined, with about four hours of extra material broadcast as five two hour episodes. Possibly. Saw something like this on BBC 1 years ago.

 

[BushBlade]

I read that too although the offer he couldn't refuse part was supposedly based on true events with Sinatra. Vito Corleone was said to be a composite of Vito Genovese and Joe Bonnano in later years and Carlo Gambino when younger, but all based on what he'd read.
James Caan did research by meeting with Columbo family members and remained firm friends with one who later became the family boss.

Apologies for going off topic!

Sinatra always denied it. It was From Here to Eternity and most people think his relationship with Ava Gardner was more influential than any mob connections he had.

Puzo was born in Hell's Kitchen so I suspect that he grew up with a few tasty fellas and would have certainly been well aware of the Mafia as a kid, even if he does attribute his knowledge to stories he heard when he was a hack writer.

 

[Sean Thornton]

No BB I was referring to the story Michael Corleone told Kay about Luca Brasi. That was supposed to be about Sinatra being released from his contract with one of the Dorseys, whose band he was singing with at the time and wanted to go solo.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

No BB I was referring to the story Michael Corleone told Kay about Luca Brasi. That was supposed to be about Sinatra being released from his contract with one of the Dorseys, whose band he was singing with at the time and wanted to go solo.

"Your brains or your signature will be on that contract."?

"That's my family, it's not me."

 

[Sean Thornton]

That's the one.